York proceeded to present the state of its claims and pretensions, followed by a similar presentation by New Jersey. 259 On July 28, after a preliminary agreement as to the manner of taking evidence, the parties commenced to present their evidence. 280 Meetings were held virtually daily during August and September. 201 On September 30 both colonies delivered their written arguments, and the report of the surveyors was read. 262 On October 7 the commissioners, with two dissenting, gave judgment that the northernmost branch of the Delaware mentioned in the patent was the junction of the Mahackamack with the Delaware, which was in the latitude of 41 degrees, 21 minutes, 37 seconds, and that a line was to be run from thence to a point of 41 degrees latitude on the west side of the Hudson River. 263 This judgment satisfied neither colony. 264 The New York agents immediately sought an appeal, but met with refusal, since no appeal could be received until termination of the two-month waiting period. 265 The reception meeting was set for December 8 in Hartford, Connecticut, but only two commissioners appeared, five constituting a quorum. 266 Two additional meetings at Hartford having failed to secure a quorum, the appeals were ordered lodged with the clerk, and an adjournment was taken until July 4, 1770. 267 Upon receipt of commission communications and upon presentation of a New York petition, the King in Council ordered with New Jersey consent in April, 1770, that the majority of the commissioners present at the July meeting should be 259 Ibid., 3-41; 2 Rep. Reg. Boun. N.Y., 756- 69. Cf. A State of the Demands and Pretensions of New Yor\ (1769), (NYPL). On July 26, New York presented an emendation of its claim (3 N.Y.-N.J. Boundary MSS, 43). 260 By consent of the parties, examination of witnesses was to be in open court in the presence of the parties upon interrogatories. It was also agreed that copies of the records from the offices of the respective secretaries, attested by the custodians, be received instead of copies under the respective great seals (ibid., 45). 2al lbid., 46-764. 262 Ibid., 765. See also An Argument Delivered on the Bart of New-York, at the Hearing before His Majesty's Commissioners . . . To Settle and Determine the Boundary Line, Between the Colonies of New-York, and New- Jersey (1769), (NYPL); A Brief of the Claim, on the part of the Province of New Jersey, and of the proof offered in support of it, before the Commissioners . . . for settling the Boundary Line, between the said Province of New-Jersey and the Province of New-York (1769), (NYPL). 203 3 N.Y.-N.J. Boundary MSS, 775; 18 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.J., 15-17; 2 Rep. Reg. Bonn. N.Y., 769-72. 264 For the New Jersey reaction thereto see 18 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.J., 15. For that of New York see 26 ibid., 519; A Brief State of the Controversy between the Colonies of New- York and New-Jersey, Respecting Their Boundary-Line (1770), 8 (NYPL). 265 3 N.Y.-N.J. Boundary MSS, 775; 26 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.J., 519; 2 Colden Letter 190—9r. In New Jersey measures were taken to afford equality with New York by provincial financing of the intended appeal (18 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.J., 21; Acts General Assembly N.J. [ed. by Allinson, 1776], 335)- 266 3 N.Y.-N.J. Boundary MSS, 783. 267 Ibid., 784; 26 Doc. Rel. Col. Hist. N.J., 586-87. The absence of the New York agents was allegedly due to the failure of the Council to provide for the expenses of the journey (4 Wm. Smith MSS, sub Mar. 10, 1770).